Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gumlegs
. . . that is exactly why it isn't science.

Science is definitely interested in making distinctions. Science begins with the observer. Not all observers are given the same evidence and tools for observation. Science is not like a world-wide church where only those who have the same experience are counted as "scientists."

95 posted on 06/24/2005 1:50:21 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]


To: Fester Chugabrew
Sorry, Fester; this is why I keep repeating that you don't understand what science is. Science depends on all observers using the same evidence and tools to get the same results. This time, you are using the vagueness of the English language to blurr the scientific meaning of "evidence" and "tools" with some theological sense of the words.

You are right about science not being like a world-wide church, however. Once can belong to any church, or even none at all, and still be a scientist. On the other hand, your idea of science seems to encompass the concept that only certain members of certain churches are capable of detecting ... something ... and that's science. It's not. Science can understand and use concepts and techniques whether they originated in the United States, India, or Japan (to name just a few of the possibilities). Your idea appears to imply that this isn't really the case or shouldn't be the case. So a vedic scientist could use vedic concepts (which, if attempted by a Baptist, would be useless), and a Dutch Reformed scientist would have at his disposal ideas and concepts that would work only for someone who is Dutch Reformed.

You confuse religion with science.

98 posted on 06/24/2005 2:12:32 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson